On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:39:45 -0700 ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > Paul Moore <paul.moore@xxxxxx> writes: > > > We suck? Maybe, but some explanation about why we suck in this > > particular case would be helpful as far as I'm concerned. I don't > > really care about identifying the guilty suckees, I'm more interested > > in finding out what happened to cause us to suck because of this. > > Agreed. I believe we carefully gave selinux the same paths for /proc/net > that it had before so I don't know why this affects user space. > > I know we had some selinux review when we made the change. > > Eric It's back up-thread somewhere. umm... On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:05:26 -0400 Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > However, the most likely explanation is simply that when /proc/net was > changed from being a directory to being a symlink to /proc/self/net, > that introduced an additional permission check on accesses > of /proc/net/<whatever>, namely the read check on the symlink itself. > And since that check wasn't happening on /proc/net accesses with older > kernels, older policies didn't allow it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
